Reporting events which journalist has bona fide reason to believe to be true can never be an offence: J&K HC quashes FIR against journalist

On Wednesday, the Jammu and Kashmir High Court quashed an FIR lodged against a senior journalist in respect of a news item in the Times of India titled "Stone pelters in J&K now target tourists, four women injured"(Mohammad Salim Pandith v. State of J&K and Anr)..In doing so, the Court observed, ."... reporting of events which a journalist has bona fide reason to believe to be true, can never be an offence. Taking a contrary view would be violative of the right of freedom of speech and expression guaranteed under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of IndiaJammu & Kashmir High Court.The Single Bench of Justice Sanjay Dhar found that the FIR did not disclose an offence under Section 505(1)(b) of the Ranbir Penal Code (in pari materia to Section 505 of the Indian Penal Code which punishes statements likely to cause public mischief)..The Court found it a fit case to exercise its inherent powers and quashed the FIR against the journalist, Mohammad Salim Pandith. The complainant’s disinclination to continue prosecuting the case was also taken on record..“... if the investigation of the FIR is permitted to continue in the absence of statement of the complainant in support of the allegations made by him in the complaint, it would be like flogging a dead horse and no fruitful purpose will be served by continuing investigation of the case", the Court added..The Senior Journalist moved the High Court after associations of travel agents accused him of spreading false information with a malicious intent to disrupt a peaceful tourist season and to create an atmosphere of threat amongst citizens of the country..The travel agents who made the complaint further averred that the events reported had in fact, not taken place at all..On the other hand, Pandith submitted that the reported occurrence, despite being denied by the Police Media Centre, was admitted by the police during a Press Briefing. The Police had informed the press that two tourists were injured when their vehicles got caught in an area where stones were being pelted..The Journalist rested his case on the fact that he was a reputed news reporter who published the report under a bona fide belief, in good faith, and relying on the acknowledgment of the event by the police..Therefore, the registration of an FIR against him amounts to an abuse of power and an attempt to gag his freedom of expression, he emphasized..Citing precedents, the Judge highlighted that the intent to cause fear or alarm to induce a person to commit an offence against the State or against public tranquillity needed to be established. Since such intent was not disclosed from the FIR, much less, evidence of inducement, the FIR was not sustainable..The Court went on to examine whether fearless and frank reporting of events/incidents in a newspaper would attract Section 505 of Ranbir Penal Code if persons engaged in a particular business feel that their business would get adversely impacted by such news reports.Vehemently asserting that it would not the Court stated: .“Fair and frank reporting of events by electronic and print media cannot be curbed merely because it may have an adverse impact on business of some class of persons. The freedom of speech and expression, which includes within its ambit freedom of the press, is subject only to reasonable restrictions imposed by law for specific purpose.”.In the context of the FIR lodged, the Judge went on to observe:.“The contents of FIR, which is based upon the complaint filed by some Association of Travel Agents, are absolutely vague and devoid of any particulars in this regard. Merely because a report allegedly threatens to disrupt the tourist season does not bring its publication within the four corners of the offence as defined under Section 505(1)(b) RPC.”.Therefore, the case was exempted from prosecution under an exception to Section 505, which makes truth and good faith a shield against prosecution..On the basis of this reasoning, the petition was allowed and the FIR quashed..Advocate Salih Pirzada argued Pandith’s case and Senior AAG BA Dar represented the State..Read the Judgment here: